scholarly journals The Revolution in Science in America, 1900-1950

Substantia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-95
Author(s):  
Jack Cohen

The US lagged behind the European powers, Germany, Britain and France, in scientific research and development at the beginning of the 20th century. Why this occurred and how Germany and Britain supported their flourishing scientific research cultures are discussed. The first serious expansion in basic scientific research in the US occurred with the influx of European Jewish scientists fleeing Nazism in the 1930’s. They specifically brought with them knowledge of atomic physics. The influence of Vannevar Bush, who was Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War Two proved crucial for the expansion of civilian research and development after the War, supported by the Federal Government. Also after the War, Operation Paperclip brought German scientists to the US and they had significant influence on developments in aeronautics, rocketry and space exploration.

1994 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Owens

Established to mobilize science during the Second World War, the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) and its director, Vannevar Bush, created new weapons as well as a new relationship between science and government that helped shape Cold War America. Yet much about the partnership that emerged disappointed Bush, especially its uncontrolled expansion and the failure of civilian oversight. The failure, ironically, as this article explains, can be traced to the very approach that allowed Bush to mobilize rapidly during wartime, especially to an “associationalism” and contractual strategy that centralized the management of R&D in Washington while leaving its performance to private contractors. Forged in more conservative decades, the strategy facilitated the rapid exploitation of private-sector resources at the cost of promoting the uncontrolled proliferation of public-private arrangements that undercut Bush's postwar hopes.


2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 241
Author(s):  
Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz

Em 17 de novembro de 1944, quando os cientistas do Projeto Manhattan já previam que teriam um artefato nuclear pronto antes de agosto de 1945, cientistas de vários outros laboratórios no Reino Unido e nos EUA já tinham desenvolvido os radares decisivos para defender a população de cidades da Inglaterra dos bombardeiros nazistas e muitas outras tecnologias relevantes para o esforço de guerra norte-americano estavam se provando importantes no campo de batalha, o presidente Franklin Roosevelt enviou a Vannevar Bush, diretor do Escritório de Pesquisa Científica e Desenvolvimento (Office of Scientific Research and Development, que articulava e supervisionava a maior parte do esforço de pesquisa para defesa)...


2006 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-199
Author(s):  
Helena P. Schrader

During World War II women in the US and the UK were given the then unprecedented opportunity to fly military aircraft. Yet while the women flying in the UK soon gained the privileges and status enjoyed by their male colleagues, the American women pilots were expressly denied the same status, rank, pay, and benefits as USAAF pilots. In fact, after an ugly slander campaign against the women pilots' organisation, the US programme was discontinued and the women were sent home before their job was done. The American women pilots were not less dedicated or inherently less capable than the women flying in Britain. Rather, key environmental and organisational differences and above all a failure of leadership accounts for their fate. This paper summarises the differences and their impact. The complete findings of the comparative research on the experiences of women pilots in the US and the UK during WWII will be published by Pen & Sword Books Inc early in 2006 under the title Sisters in Arms.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Selin M. Bölme

In their well-known book, The Israel Lobby, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt argue that the Israel lobby has a significant influence on American policy towards the Middle East. As a consequence of Israeli lobbying, US-Israeli relations warmed by late 1950s and the United States became more committed to protecting Israel’s interests. In my article, I analyse the policy of the US towards the Palestinian question before the Israel lobby gained that influence on US foreign policy, and I try to understand the making of American policy during the establishment of Israel. I also examine the factors that shaped the American policy and focus on Zionist lobbying in this period and question its influence. The period that I examine starts just before World War II under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) and I end the period with the recognition of Israel by the US under the presidency of Harry S. Truman (1945-1953). Many different domestic and foreign factors shaped the Palestine policy of the US in that period. However, I argue that even before the Israel Lobby was consolidated in the country, the Zionists had already gained a significant influence on American policy towards the Middle East region.    


2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvin Finkel

Abstract During World War Two, all federal political parties sought to accommodate the growing demand for "welfare state" programs. Mackenzie King's Liberals successfully checked the growth of the CCF by promising a comprehensive program of cradle-to-grave security. After the 1945 election the Liberal government prepared such a program and brought it to a dominion-provincial conference whose purpose was to determine the taxation and administrative arrangements necessary for its implementation. The "conference", which became a series of mini-conferences stretched over nine months, ended without agreement. The federal government blamed recalcitrant premiers in Ontario and Quebec for the conference's failure and abandoned much of the reform program. This article argues that the federal government, in fact, wanted the conference to fail because it did not want to undertake the expenses implied in the reform proposals. After proving inflexible in dealing with provincial criticisms, it cynically and successfully manipulated events to make it appear that the provinces had killed hopes for reform. Post-war prosperity and a declining interest in reform, particularly on the part of the corporate and medical elites, contributed to the federal government's unwillingness to pursue reform vigorously.


Author(s):  
Kei Koizumi

Large-scale U.S. government support of scientific research began in World War II with physics, and rapidly expanded in the postwar era to contribute strongly to the United States’ emergence as the world’s leading scientific and economic superpower in the latter half of the 20th century. Vannevar Bush, who directed President Franklin Roosevelt’s World War II science efforts, in the closing days of the War advocated forcefully for U.S. government funding of scientific research to continue even in peacetime to support three important government missions of national security, health, and the economy. He also argued forcefully for the importance of basic research supported by the federal government but steered and guided by the scientific community. This vision guided an expanding role for the U.S. government in supporting research not only at government laboratories but also in non-government institutions, especially universities. Although internationally comparable data are difficult to obtain, the U.S. government appears to be the single largest national funder of physics research. The U.S. government support of physics research comes from many different federal departments and agencies. Federal agencies also invest in experimental development based on research discoveries of physics. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science is by far the dominant supporter of physics research in the United States, and DOE’s national laboratories are the dominant performers of U.S. government-supported physics research. Since the 1970s, U.S. government support of physics research has been stagnant with the greatest growth in U.S. government research support having shifted since the 1990s to the life sciences and computer sciences.


1980 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 480-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart W. Leslie

The conventional distinctions between “practical” and “scientific” research and development can be misleading. The experience of Thomas Midgley, Jr., at the General Motors Corporation in the three decades before World War II, and especially his critical role in the development of “antiknock” gasoline additives, freon refrigerant, and synthetic rubber, illustrate this fact. Dr. Leslie demonstrates that the management of corporate research and development, especially as that management affects uniquely talented individuals whose interests do not necessarily reflect the immediate needs of the company as seen by management, is basic to success. To solve such problems as they arose, Charles F. Kettering, himself a sympathetic scientist as well as distinguished inventor, worked closely with chief executive Alfred P. Sloan, whose genius for solving managerial problems matched the scientific genius of the most brilliant men in the General Motors laboratories.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrina Avers ◽  
William B. Johnson

Human fatigue remains a significant challenge in aviation. Basic scientific research has studied fatigue and created a solid scientific understanding. Current efforts seek to transfer the available research into operational environments. This document reviews the research and development conducted by the US Federal Aviation Administration over the past 50 years and focuses on studies that have led to the successful transition from science into the aviation industry. Further, this article reviews current strategies and methods used to transition research into workplace operations.


Author(s):  
Jerry Gershenhorn

During World War II, Austin was North Carolina’s leading advocate of the Double V strategy during World War II, fighting for victory at home against racist injustice, while supporting US efforts against the Axis powers abroad. Austin shined a bright light on the contrast between the United States government’s wartime rhetoric of fighting for freedom in Europe and Asia, and the oppression experienced by blacks every day on the home front. Unlike many black leaders in North Carolina, Austin supported A. Philip Randolph’s March on Washington Movement, which compelled President Franklin D. Roosevelt to issue an executive order that banned racial discrimination in defense plants. Despite being harassed by several federal government agencies, including the FBI and the IRS, Austin refused to tone down his attacks on the US and North Carolina governments for perpetuating racially oppressive policies. In 1944, Austin revitalized the Durham branch of the NAACP after a white bus driver murdered a black soldier. The bus driver, who was exonerated by an all-white jury, shot the soldier, who had initially refused to accommodate to Jim Crow seating.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document